Alan,

The constraint I place on myself is very simple: if my perspective is to remain entirely general (i.e., unconstrained) I can posit nothing which limits what which can be seen from that perspective. You clearly do not understand that constraint.

***** Alan:
"The analogy collapses because it has to presume "the rest of the world" in order to deny contact with it."
*****

That statement is incorrect for two reasons: First, as I have defined "reality", "something B" is clearly not part of reality; it is rather a figment of my imagination. As such, it can be absolutely any collection of concepts conceivable. Secondly, to assume that "something B" vanishes, is to assume "reality" has no explanation; a rather pointless assumption if your intent is to explain reality!

***** Alan:
But I'm not sure your conclusion matches John Hospers; the result of all this is that you ARE in direct contact with reality- which is my point.
*****

As I define reality, I certainly am in direct contact; however, the explanation of reality is a figment of my imagination. It is the second which is the subject of any discussion between human beings, not the first!

***** Alan:
You seem to conclude that "the world outside the exchange", "something B", can never be known. The correct conclusion is the opposite of that: it is that there is no such world; no exchange; no isolation from reality. You are in DIRECT contact with reality; you can answer questions about reality.
*****

No Alan, you cannot answer any questions about reality without some interpretation of "something A": i.e., some ideas and/or concepts. Without such, you are utterly in the dark.

***** Alan:
How about addressing some issues in my "rest of reply to Dr. Dick" post?
*****

I thought we just agreed to disagree! Let us just say I do not understand much of what you say.

Have fun -- Dick

• Thank you - dolphin - April 4, 2002 - 09:39 UTC